Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2010 5:08 am Post subject: Re: There is always a network of points to make

Thy Brilliance wrote:

Sam wrote:

ok explain?

The "military" is quite adept at rationalizing a number of ethical frameworks to suit their needs at a given time.

They can defend their framework(s) intellectually almost always and in worst case scenarios will shift the blame on individuals involved, ie the ones following orders.

Imagery is used to increase the effectiveness of that technique. It gives a definite picture of individuals and their actions involving humanity, and has time and again manipulated peoples emotions and opinions into excessive focus on singular events.

The transparency of sites such as wikileaks allows for the possibility of misleading propaganda not necessarily leaked by a "concerned whistleblower" to be considered an objective view of events as they transpire.

It is a damn insult to apologize for the incident while maintaining the status quo, but because mass media has a modularized view of reality there really isn't any choice in the matter.

/actually, n/m, I don't want this to be a compound question. I mostly want to hear this:

Perhaps he meant compartmental thinking, or perhaps a full-blown dissociative disorder. I know better than to speak for him, though. His answer could be a lot more entertaining._________________The reward for a good life is a good life.

I think what he is trying to say is that, publicly apologizing for individual mistakes and tragedies, treating them as mistakes made by deranged individuals, might be a way to cover up the on-going abuses and their root cause. Or at least that's part of what he's saying, I think. Maybe._________________A cigarette is the perfect type of a perfect pleasure. It is exquisite, and it leaves one unsatisfied. What more can one want? ~Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray

Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2010 8:51 pm Post subject: Re: There is always a network of points to make

Sam wrote:

Thy Brilliance wrote:

Sam wrote:

ok explain?

The "military" is quite adept at rationalizing a number of ethical frameworks to suit their needs at a given time.

They can defend their framework(s) intellectually almost always and in worst case scenarios will shift the blame on individuals involved, ie the ones following orders.

Imagery is used to increase the effectiveness of that technique. It gives a definite picture of individuals and their actions involving humanity, and has time and again manipulated peoples emotions and opinions into excessive focus on singular events.

The transparency of sites such as wikileaks allows for the possibility of misleading propaganda not necessarily leaked by a "concerned whistleblower" to be considered an objective view of events as they transpire.

It is a damn insult to apologize for the incident while maintaining the status quo, but because mass media has a modularized view of reality there really isn't any choice in the matter.

/actually, n/m, I don't want this to be a compound question. I mostly want to hear this:

What, honestly, is a 'modularized view of reality'

When you watch, read, or hear the news, you are seeing bits and pieces of "reality."

The human brain is hardwired to fill in gaps missing from those bits and pieces, AKA make sense of it all.

People do this all the time, without even knowing it. They compare it to their past experiences etc.

This is considered to be a fallacy if there is a ridiculous amount of possible "interpreted realities" by media consumers.

Most news classified as "misleading" takes advantage of this fallacy, it lets the viewer fill in the gaps via an alternate possibly shorter fallacious route without directly stating it.

Since all news must be accelerated, succinct and to the point to retain the audience's attention, there will always be gaps in the presentation.

That is a modularized view of reality, it is not reality, it is a percentage at best. It is a localized view, and the global view is out of sight.

The "news" can be divided into different "modules."

Sports, Weather, Traffic, and general/miscellaneous news.

An amalgam of unrelated things presented together.

That is why I use that phrase.

So when dealing with few sources to begin with, such as classified documents from the government, especially those sources or images that can emotionally charge people into action, all the government can do is apologize, because people can condemn entities without comprehensive proof. Whether or not it is a sincere apology is another question entirely.

6:28pm EDT
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - A U.S. soldier has been arrested in connection with the release of a classified video showing a 2007 helicopter attack that killed a dozen people in Baghdad, including two Reuters news staff, the U.S. military said on Monday.
Army Specialist Bradley Manning, 22, of Potomac, Maryland, who was deployed to Baghdad, is being held in pretrial confinement in Kuwait, "for allegedly releasing classified information," according to a U.S. military statement.
The statement did not provide details of the information in question but in an emailed response to a query, a U.S. official confirmed that the case involved a U.S. military videotape made public in April by WikiLeaks, a group that promotes the leaking of information to fight government and corporate corruption.
The gunsight video shows an attack by a U.S. Apache helicopter on a group of men in a square in a Baghdad neighborhood. The group included Reuters photographer Namir Noor-Eldeen, 22, and his assistant and driver, Saeed Chmagh, 40.
Wired magazine, which initially reported the arrest on its website on Sunday evening, said Manning, an intelligence analyst, came under suspicion after he told a former hacker during an email exchange that he had leaked the video. Wired did not disclose its sources but quoted from what it said Manning had written.
The magazine said Manning also claimed to have leaked other classified information, including video of a 2009 bombing in Afghanistan that killed dozens of civilians and 260,000 classified U.S. diplomatic cables.
Wired reported that WikiLeaks had previously acknowledged it was in possession of the bombing video. It said only one U.S. diplomatic cable had been posted by WikiLeaks.
There was no immediate comment from WikiLeaks, but a person involved with the group said WikiLeaks did not know if Manning used its services because all its sources are anonymous.
"Our legal advisers have started working on the case, and are verifying how much this military investigation is violating the rights of our sources and us," the person involved with WikiLeaks said in an email.
The Pentagon said investigators were taking a very careful look at what classified information might have been divulged by Manning, who was deployed with the 2nd Brigade 10th Mountain Division.
NATIONAL SECURITY AFFECTED
"The Department of Defense takes the management of classified information very seriously because it affects our national security, the lives of our soldiers, and our operations abroad," the U.S. military statement said.
"The results of the investigation will be released upon completion of the investigation," it said.
The U.S. State Department said it was cooperating with the Defense Department in the investigation and took the release of any classified cables seriously. It said the cables would have included analysis that had been shared with the military.
"It has particular impact in terms of potentially revealing what we call 'sources and methods,' you know, compromising our ability to ... provide government leaders with the kind of analysis that they need to make informed decisions," State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley told reporters in Washington.
He said it was difficult to assess the effect of the security breach. "What the impact of this will be we'll evaluate over time," Crowley said.
The video of the Iraq helicopter attack released in April included an audio track of conversation between the fliers and showed an aerial view of men moving through the square. The helicopter opened fire, killing several people and wounding others.
A military spokesman said the helicopter crew mistook a camera for a rocket-propelled grenade launcher.
Minutes later, a van approached and began trying to assist the wounded. The fliers apparently became concerned that the vehicle was occupied by militants and fired on it.
WikiLeaks said it obtained the video from military whistleblowers and had been able to view and investigate it after breaking an encryption code.
Some international law and human rights experts say the helicopter crew may have acted illegally.
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates criticized WikiLeaks for releasing the video without providing any context.
The U.S. military has said an investigation shortly after the incident found that the U.S. forces were unaware of the presence of news staff and thought they were engaging armed insurgents.
Reuters editor-in-chief David Schlesinger in April called for a new investigation of the incident.
Military officials said after the video's release that they had no plans to reopen the investigation.
(Reporting by Jim Loney in Baghdad and David Alexander and Arshad Mohammed in Washington; editing by Myra MacDonald and Mohammad Zargham)

Once again, likelihood of prosecution varies inversely with institutional authority.

It's this kind of duplicitously asymmetrical application of legal punishment that makes me want to become an activist. It's just so maddeningly blatant. Hell, Bush openly bragged about ordering waterboarding just this week._________________Hatred is gained as much by good works as by evil. ~ Ellen Degeneres

If I were a hopeless optimist, or an idiot, I might be shocked by the lack of coverage in America.

Plus, all respect to tough journalism, but if the guy says he'll walk out of the interview if you keep questioning him about his personal life while he's representing an organization, you might want to back off.